ramone:
I have been eagerly waiting since your last installment and wondered if you had lost faith in this thread please post asap
I’ll second that.
railstaff:
Carryfast:
ERF:
I have been reading through the last two pages in the company of a retired senior design engineer from Perkins, and there has been a lot of grinning, one raised eyebrow and head shaking from him at certain posts…I won’t say who from!. He did reiterate that very experienced professionals in his field of work had the utmost respect for the bravery and achievement of the AEC design team engaged on their ‘clean sheet’ V8 project, and although it ultimately failed because of it’s premature production application in a heavy road haulage vehicle, from an engineering development standpoint it was far from regarded as a ‘lemon’, and yealded very useful and significant data - which was exactly what it was intended to do as an engine development experiment.It’s ironic that Perkins chose to buy up Rolls and with it obviously the rights to produce the Rolls Eagle/TX rather than offering Leyland the cash for the rights to produce the AEC V8 and TL12 instead in that case.
Yes others did learn a lot from AEC’s ( and ■■■■■■■■ ) mistakes.That main thing being don’t follow their example of using a silly short stroke on a heavy truck engine.
Can you answer the question please so I at least can take you seriously.
He lives in Leatherhead and I can give you the address of the Secure Accommodation where he is incarcerated if it helps ? The Matron’s name is Hattie IIRC 
Carryfast:
Yes others did learn a lot from AEC’s ( and ■■■■■■■■ ) mistakes.That main thing being don’t follow their example of using a silly short stroke on a heavy truck engine.
Unic. Berliet. Fiat. Perkins. All short-stroke V8 lorry engines. All durable.
[/quote]
He lives in Leatherhead and I can give you the address of the Secure Accommodation where he is incarcerated if it helps ? The Matron’s name is Hattie IIRC
[/quote]
I have the postcode if it helps, RG45 7EG
Dave…
dave docwra:
He lives in Leatherhead and I can give you the address of the Secure Accommodation where he is incarcerated if it helps ? The Matron’s name is Hattie IIRC
[/quote]
I have the postcode if it helps, RG45 7EG
Dave…
[/quote]
That should find the ■■■■ Dave ! 
The 903 was that poor it robbed 35% of Detroits business in the states during the mid 60,s and into the 80,s.Again designed to suit all needs,with a stroke just under 5 inch.Two areas were it excelled was pleasure craft were a decent engine speed was needed and also agricultural needs were its still used today.But the real reason for the short stroke was for it to fit in cramped spaces but still keep the cubic capacity.As it was a 90 degree vee,increasing the stroke would mean increasing the area across the vee to keep the 90 degree angle as the crankcase would need to be enlarged but at 320hp naturally aspirated it wasn’t that bad.It would seem after all them ■■■■■■■ dumbells knew what they were doing.
The only real issue the AEC’s engines have related to injectors seems to be injector pipe breakage, that being associated with their inline engines. There will no doubt be quite a few readers of this forum who will have experienced these failing. IIRC if anyone cares to trawl through various other threads, no doubt there will be tales of ‘carrying a cabful of injector pipe around’ for AEC engines. The chief reason for these to fail apart from improper alignment is usually that the anti-vibration clips or their rubbers have worked loose or are missing.
I have never experienced the problem with specifically an AEC engine, however it is possible for an injector needle to stick up, which allows cylinder gas to enter the injector, which is then in turn capable of stopping the engine; at least it is on idle in my experience. That said the AEC fitted CAV or Simms injectors just the same as many other engine makers did, so the fault would be possible in their engine.
The continuing story of the V8 rebuild, what was discovered and what improvements were made is eagerly awaited, especially by those for whom the AEC’s products are not just a distant memory, but feature daily either through ownership or in the course of maintaining owners’ elderly vehicles.
Carryfast, you’re making me dizzy, now you’re talking about 250+hp 6 and 8 wheeler rigids in the early 70s and about the V8 AEC being an engine for long haul trucks, it was a prototype engine, a test bed if you like, put into a few select fleets to assess durability and iron out any problems in real life conditions. It didn’t work out so well and the idea was shelved.
The concept was similar to the FIAT V8, which worked out quite well for the Italians, look at the EuroTest results for the 170/35, nothing came close to it and as an operator of those engines in the 90s I can confirm that even uprated to 480/520hp, the short stroke"design flaw" never impacted performance, economy or reliability, quite the opposite, against the long stroke Scania equivalent the FIAT would be in front by a considerable margin. I believe that in marine and static applications that short stroke “grenade” was able to achieve 1000hp with no reliability issues.
Now to the 250+hp rigids, seriously? The only explanation I can come up with for that statement is that you were on some kind of mind altering drugs in the 70s, there’s no other logical explanation for such a ridiculous statement.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
[zb]
anorak:
Unic. Berliet. Fiat. Perkins. All short-stroke V8 lorry engines. All durable.
Define ‘short’ at least in the case of the Unic,Berliet,Fiat relative to AEC 114 mm and ■■■■■■■ 120 mm respectively ?.
newmercman:
Carryfast, you’re making me dizzy, now you’re talking about 250+hp 6 and 8 wheeler rigids in the early 70s and about the V8 AEC being an engine for long haul trucks, it was a prototype engine, a test bed if you like, put into a few select fleets to assess durability and iron out any problems in real life conditions. It didn’t work out so well and the idea was shelved.The concept was similar to the FIAT V8, which worked out quite well for the Italians, look at the EuroTest results for the 170/35, nothing came close to it and as an operator of those engines in the 90s I can confirm that even uprated to 480/520hp, the short stroke"design flaw" never impacted performance, economy or reliability, quite the opposite, against the long stroke Scania equivalent the FIAT would be in front by a considerable margin. I believe that in marine and static applications that short stroke “grenade” was able to achieve 1000hp with no reliability issues.
Now to the 250+hp rigids, seriously? The only explanation I can come up with for that statement is that you were on some kind of mind altering drugs in the 70s, there’s no other logical explanation for such a ridiculous statement.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
Completely off topic but as someone who run them, was the 8280 in the turbostar head and shoulders above the rest?On paper it doesn’t look that special,but it seems it was a flying machine.
newmercman:
Carryfast, you’re making me dizzy, now you’re talking about 250+hp 6 and 8 wheeler rigids in the early 70s and about the V8 AEC being an engine for long haul trucks, it was a prototype engine, a test bed if you like, put into a few select fleets to assess durability and iron out any problems in real life conditions. It didn’t work out so well and the idea was shelved.The concept was similar to the FIAT V8, which worked out quite well for the Italians, look at the EuroTest results for the 170/35, nothing came close to it and as an operator of those engines in the 90s I can confirm that even uprated to 480/520hp, the short stroke"design flaw" never impacted performance, economy or reliability, quite the opposite, against the long stroke Scania equivalent the FIAT would be in front by a considerable margin. I believe that in marine and static applications that short stroke “grenade” was able to achieve 1000hp with no reliability issues.
Now to the 250+hp rigids, seriously? The only explanation I can come up with for that statement is that you were on some kind of mind altering drugs in the 70s, there’s no other logical explanation for such a ridiculous statement.
Firstly that at least is an admittedly late 1970’s reg 265 Rolls powered 6 wheeler rigid.Bearing in mind it wasn’t particularly designed with that spec for running at big speeds but more durability.
farm5.static.flickr.com/4051/51 … 8724_b.jpg
If I’ve read it right windrush has also possibly referred to similar spec rigids in the day ?.While I was actually referring to a de rated TL12 anyway.In which case it was equally obvious that I was referring to a comparison of the relative de rated output of the TL12 running at lighter loads compared to that of the NA 680 or the headless wonder.While the AEC V8 was also not given the chance to see if it also ‘might’ have worked better under the lighter loads of the rigid market compared to the headless wonder at least.
As for the concept of the AEC V8 or the ■■■■■■■ 903 being ‘similar’ to the Euro V8’s not unless you can show an equivalent choice of actual stroke measurement.With,if I’ve got it right,all of them being closer to the more expected 140 mm benchmark than the AEC’s 114 or the ■■■■■■■■ 120 mm ?.While it’s clear that I was only referring to those specific examples not the Scania,or Merc or the Fiat.In addition to the possibility that the Fiat was an exception proving rules just on the basis that such a large overall capacity obviously provided scope for larger more substantial components than AEC’s smaller capacity design.The Fiat just being something special for that reason of its massive overall capacity and no other.With the latest Scania V8 proving the rule of small bore and long stroke = more torque = more power for less engine speed = less fuel consumption.
railstaff:
The 903 was that poor it robbed 35% of Detroits business in the states during the mid 60,s and into the 80,s.Again designed to suit all needs,with a stroke just under 5 inch.Two areas were it excelled was pleasure craft were a decent engine speed was needed and also agricultural needs were its still used today.But the real reason for the short stroke was for it to fit in cramped spaces but still keep the cubic capacity.As it was a 90 degree vee,increasing the stroke would mean increasing the area across the vee to keep the 90 degree angle as the crankcase would need to be enlarged but at 320hp naturally aspirated it wasn’t that bad.It would seem after all them ■■■■■■■ dumbells knew what they were doing.
Blimey while I can easily believe that the combined sales of 855 etc eventually all helped to take out Detroit in the end.There’s no way that I can believe that it was just the 903 v the 8 and 12v71 and then 8v92 through the 1960’s and the 1970’s into the 80’s that could have done it.
But who knows if that idea was what AEC’s designers were going by,in putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 5,that a smaller capacity 903 knock off was a better solution than going for a new 6 cylinder design using the 691’s 130 or even 760’s 136 mm bore with the 855’s 152 mm stroke.
railstaff:
newmercman:
Carryfast, you’re making me dizzy, now you’re talking about 250+hp 6 and 8 wheeler rigids in the early 70s and about the V8 AEC being an engine for long haul trucks, it was a prototype engine, a test bed if you like, put into a few select fleets to assess durability and iron out any problems in real life conditions. It didn’t work out so well and the idea was shelved.The concept was similar to the FIAT V8, which worked out quite well for the Italians, look at the EuroTest results for the 170/35, nothing came close to it and as an operator of those engines in the 90s I can confirm that even uprated to 480/520hp, the short stroke"design flaw" never impacted performance, economy or reliability, quite the opposite, against the long stroke Scania equivalent the FIAT would be in front by a considerable margin. I believe that in marine and static applications that short stroke “grenade” was able to achieve 1000hp with no reliability issues.
Now to the 250+hp rigids, seriously? The only explanation I can come up with for that statement is that you were on some kind of mind altering drugs in the 70s, there’s no other logical explanation for such a ridiculous statement.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
Completely off topic but as someone who run them, was the 8280 in the turbostar head and shoulders above the rest?On paper it doesn’t look that special,but it seems it was a flying machine.
During that period I owned a Volvo F16, Scania 143 and the 48 TurboStar, the IVECO was better on fuel than both the Swedes, the F16 being an absolute nightmare on fuel consumption. Power wise the TurboStar would outpull the others by a noticeable margin, the ultra fast shift of the 13spd Fuller helped a bit for sure, but it wasn’t often that it came out of the top hole. With hindsight I would have bought three 190-48s and stayed away from the F16 and 143-470.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
Carryfast you mention the V8 Scania time and time again, but you’re talking about an over 40yr evolution, so it’s apples to oranges again. You need to focus not on the current model, but the 350hp 140 which was of the time. It was massively outclassed by the 350hp FIAT, just under 3 litres bigger than the 140, but naturally aspirated against the turbocharged Scania.
Something else to ponder, I bet you that you would see a 170F35 still at work within an hour of arriving anywhere south of Rome, so a short stroke doesn’t necessarily mean a short lifespan.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
newmercman:
railstaff:
newmercman:
Carryfast, you’re making me dizzy, now you’re talking about 250+hp 6 and 8 wheeler rigids in the early 70s and about the V8 AEC being an engine for long haul trucks, it was a prototype engine, a test bed if you like, put into a few select fleets to assess durability and iron out any problems in real life conditions. It didn’t work out so well and the idea was shelved.The concept was similar to the FIAT V8, which worked out quite well for the Italians, look at the EuroTest results for the 170/35, nothing came close to it and as an operator of those engines in the 90s I can confirm that even uprated to 480/520hp, the short stroke"design flaw" never impacted performance, economy or reliability, quite the opposite, against the long stroke Scania equivalent the FIAT would be in front by a considerable margin. I believe that in marine and static applications that short stroke “grenade” was able to achieve 1000hp with no reliability issues.
Now to the 250+hp rigids, seriously? The only explanation I can come up with for that statement is that you were on some kind of mind altering drugs in the 70s, there’s no other logical explanation for such a ridiculous statement.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
Completely off topic but as someone who run them, was the 8280 in the turbostar head and shoulders above the rest?On paper it doesn’t look that special,but it seems it was a flying machine.
During that period I owned a Volvo F16, Scania 143 and the 48 TurboStar, the IVECO was better on fuel than both the Swedes, the F16 being an absolute nightmare on fuel consumption. Power wise the TurboStar would outpull the others by a noticeable margin, the ultra fast shift of the 13spd Fuller helped a bit for sure, but it wasn’t often that it came out of the top hole. With hindsight I would have bought three 190-48s and stayed away from the F16 and 143-470.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
Thank you for that NMM,it seems strange that with all the advancements I.E unit injectors,Electronic diesel control,SMART turbos not much could live with them.Never drove or tested one but from how I know N14s,it sounds as though they(8280) could dispose of N14 too.
Carryfast, when you mentioned a 265 Rolls in a six wheeler I could only think of the council ploughs and spreaders having that fitment and your pic confirms that. It wasn’t an option in the Foden six wheeler road wagons ever as it was too heavy and the ■■■■■■■ 265 ‘C’ series was used, but that was in the late eighties so not in this time frame. In the early seventies it was the Rolls 220 that eight wheelers would have as an alternative to the Gardner 180 LXB, although we did have a couple with 250 ■■■■■■■ but they again were ‘early eighties’ trucks.
Pete.
railstaff:
newmercman:
railstaff:
newmercman:
Carryfast, you’re making me dizzy, now you’re talking about 250+hp 6 and 8 wheeler rigids in the early 70s and about the V8 AEC being an engine for long haul trucks, it was a prototype engine, a test bed if you like, put into a few select fleets to assess durability and iron out any problems in real life conditions. It didn’t work out so well and the idea was shelved.The concept was similar to the FIAT V8, which worked out quite well for the Italians, look at the EuroTest results for the 170/35, nothing came close to it and as an operator of those engines in the 90s I can confirm that even uprated to 480/520hp, the short stroke"design flaw" never impacted performance, economy or reliability, quite the opposite, against the long stroke Scania equivalent the FIAT would be in front by a considerable margin. I believe that in marine and static applications that short stroke “grenade” was able to achieve 1000hp with no reliability issues.
Now to the 250+hp rigids, seriously? The only explanation I can come up with for that statement is that you were on some kind of mind altering drugs in the 70s, there’s no other logical explanation for such a ridiculous statement.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
Completely off topic but as someone who run them, was the 8280 in the turbostar head and shoulders above the rest?On paper it doesn’t look that special,but it seems it was a flying machine.
During that period I owned a Volvo F16, Scania 143 and the 48 TurboStar, the IVECO was better on fuel than both the Swedes, the F16 being an absolute nightmare on fuel consumption. Power wise the TurboStar would outpull the others by a noticeable margin, the ultra fast shift of the 13spd Fuller helped a bit for sure, but it wasn’t often that it came out of the top hole. With hindsight I would have bought three 190-48s and stayed away from the F16 and 143-470.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
Thank you for that NMM,it seems strange that with all the advancements I.E unit injectors,Electronic diesel control,SMART turbos not much could live with them.Never drove or tested one but from how I know N14s,it sounds as though they(8280) could dispose of N14 too.
The Italians have a bit of history in making very good engines. As you say, even with all the advances made in recent years, I don’t think anything in the same power range could live with one. Economy wise no doubt, but for pulling power the newer engines couldn’t come close. They were a lot of fun to drive and made a lovely noise too, I put a pair of 6" Eminox stacks on my 190-48 and never turned the radio on again lol
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
windrush:
Carryfast, when you mentioned a 265 Rolls in a six wheeler I could only think of the council ploughs and spreaders having that fitment and your pic confirms that. It wasn’t an option in the Foden six wheeler road wagons ever as it was too heavy and the ■■■■■■■ 265 ‘C’ series was used, but that was in the late eighties so not in this time frame. In the early seventies it was the Rolls 220 that eight wheelers would have as an alternative to the Gardner 180 LXB, although we did have a couple with 250 ■■■■■■■ but they again were ‘early eighties’ trucks.Pete.
Nice one Pete. I can’t wait to see the response to that.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
windrush:
Carryfast, when you mentioned a 265 Rolls in a six wheeler I could only think of the council ploughs and spreaders having that fitment and your pic confirms that. It wasn’t an option in the Foden six wheeler road wagons ever as it was too heavy and the ■■■■■■■ 265 ‘C’ series was used, but that was in the late eighties so not in this time frame. In the early seventies it was the Rolls 220 that eight wheelers would have as an alternative to the Gardner 180 LXB, although we did have a couple with 250 ■■■■■■■ but they again were ‘early eighties’ trucks.Pete.
Well said Pete, I was going to reply along similar lines in my earlier response to CF, but couldn’t be bothered because if a comment doesn’t fit in with his ideas he takes no notice. As you well know as you were an eight-wheeler driver in the era we’re talking about, the other popular eight-wheelers alongside the Scammell Routeman were ERFs, Fodens, Atkinson / Seddon Atkinson, Mammoth Majors etc. all with 200 to 220 bhp as standard power options.
There were quite a few 8 wheeler operators in my area, aggregates and muckaway tippers mostly and a few visitors from up north, Holt Lane and Favor Parker being two memorable firms and the Blue Circle Cement Routemans were a regular sight and there were the beautiful Albion Sugar Fodens too.
The most common engine was the 6LXB and later the 6LXC. The Rolls and ■■■■■■■ were 220s and the imports which were thin on the ground were mainly 2200/2300 Dafs and later on the Magirus Deutz 232 and the odd MAN 240.
6 wheelers were D series Fords with the 170hp V8 Perkins, a few Mastiffs and 500 series Dodges with the same power plant or Leyland Reivers, mainly concrete mixers and Tarmac tippers, imports were rare and I can only recollect the LP2419 Merc.
4 wheelers were Ford D1614, Bedford KM or Leyland Clydesdale.
This was the same kind of thing I saw on my travels too, so I would say that it was a typical representation of the era.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk